🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”